Jump to content
The Education Forum

What is accomplished by moving Shot #1 up Elm over 10 feet?


Recommended Posts

On 1/11/2017 at 8:07 PM, Michael Walton said:

Respectfully, I disagree with the Zfilm alteration.  I think the one we've been seeing for years is the one that came out of Abe's camera.

Michael Walton,

Pardon the somewhat personal question, but I don't think you would object to responding...

It's impossible to read multiple postings from an individual and not form an opinion as to how their minds work. Particularly their methods used to form and defend an 'unpopular' (at least on this site) opinion, such as your insistence that the extant film "came out of Abe's camera." These perceived methods  may be extrapolated into fields other than the assassination as an indication of this opinion's degree of accuracy.

I have neither posted here, nor read any threads here for many months, so have not read any opinion stated by you in the Hillary v. Trump debacle. I returned to read the comments re John Newman's new publications, but have done a quick scan of the current topics, and you continued denial of Z-film alteration caught my attention.

In my opinion, you didn't like either candidate enough to support their election. Despite their vast differences, and the undeniable fact that one of these two would end up in the White House, rather than choose the lesser of the two evils, you chose not to vote at all. Also, you are QUITE confident that you made the right choice so you will have no qualms in responding to my opinion.

I am simply curious as to whether or not my opinion is accurate, and I thank you in advance for any response.

And yes, I also do card tricks, tell fortunes, and predict the future...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 6:39 PM, Brad Milch said:

@Chris & David:

In the spirit of aiding those Education Forum readers following this thread with interest, allow me to present some questions for those non-members to aid in their personal analysis & conclusions about this cold case:

From what you know of this case in your studies, does the ambush of JFK & entourage on Elm Street suggest a sophisticated military type ambush or (as 'Oswald did it' preachers like EF's own David Von Pein's well publicized take on the case)  a happenstance situation where an amateur, solely by himself, chose a spot in a building that happened to be free of internal witnesses, cleared JFK's security & other outside obstacles & created the damage that resulted after his/her gunfire in Dealey Plaza over 53 years ago?

Brad - not sure what you're doing here...  seems to me as I reread, you want to use our work to convince the DVP faithful of the reality of the situation... but it doesn't come off that way - or am I mistaken?.

1st off ... it's not a cold case by any means.  

2nd, you seem to have confused 1) the act of killing JFK and 2) the conspiratorial act of covering up the evidence while convicting a Lone shooter.

Can anyone accurately explain the "thinking behind the thinking" related to this assassination?
- was the initial plan to implicate a Castro Conspiracy to allow for a US retaliatory invasion?
- was the initial plan to use a Castro Conspiracy simply to keep people quiet about what they knew about the real killers?

No one within the list of characters was in a position to dictate the terms of the autopsy - e.g. the "Best Evidence" - other than the Military
Virtually everyone involved (from Dallas to New Orleans) had served for or was responsible to the US Military and/or FBI/CIA

The authentication of the offered evidence proves that there was no where near enough incriminating evidence to convict Oswald, so the evidence was expanded between Friday night when the FBI took all the evidence and The following week when it was returned and retaken by the FBI, only now there were hundreds of items that were not taken Friday night but were now part of the evidence against Oswald.  When you come to terms with that first and supremely important FBI act of evidence manipulation you may understand how Oswald doing any of this is not possible.
.

To Z-film alteration believers or skeptics, wasn't the first indication that something was wrong with the Z-film introduced to the world by Life magazine (purchasers & owners of the film), who told us JFK looked back to the TSBD from his parade car traversing Elm Street & was shot in the neck by Oswald (supposedly stationed there in the 'sniper's nest' with his weapon)? Did this actually happen, was it ever in the Z-film & was it's absence merely a big lie; the first of many to follow by early investigators & MSM supporting them?

Let's take this one at a time...  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MQHux-LGI7A/VcfRG-ZaIMI/AAAAAAABG5A/RRfN7tt0jz8/s1700-h/LIFE-Magazine-12-6-63-Paul-Mandel-Article.png is a link to the LIFE article by Paul Mandel where this is written and the attached is the paragraph you refer to..

"...who told us JFK looked back to the TSBD...." is what you wrote to summarize the paragraph.  I guess you neglected to mention the "Hence the recurring guess..."

So why on earth would a LIFE author inject his own thoughts about a film no one had seen which allows for Oswald to shoot JFK in the front of the throat?  And why then would that be removed if it added strength to the Oswald=Lone Nut theory?  Because it was never on the film in the first place... but we don't get to see the film, only stills...  Wouldn't a still frame of JFK's throat facing the TSBD make sense to support the conclusion? LIFE owned the film and photographic rights.

One thing we can conclude though... LIFE magazine corroborates the throat wound at the front as an entrance, not an exit...  ooops!  Now if they could only show that image of JFK turned to the TSBD.... right?

Was the early stages of the 'single bullet theory' supposed to be the reverse of what it became in 1964, namely, was JFK supposed to have been shot in the throat (while facing his TSBD assailant) & that shot exiting JFK's back, going on to strike Gov Connally, the chrome windshield strip, the parade car's windshield and/or James Tague? Was the apparent editing imposed on the Z-film evidence of 1963-1964 government CYA?

The SBT did not exist until after Tague and the WCR survey in May 1964... there were no "early stages"  
WCD1 - the FBI report states 3 shots = 3 hits, 2 to JFK, 1 to JC.  

This comes after the Dec 2,3,4 reenactment which becomes WCD298 which places shot #2 at z313.     

img_10699_26_200.jpg

 

CE875's SS photos also states the last shot occurred within 4 feet of 5+00 which is exactly where the final car representing the limo is placed in the above image.  No missed shots... same result on the TIME/LIFE survey from Nov 26 and from the FBI reenactment in Feb 1964.
In April 1964 the Eisenberg group of people viewed the film with a desire, yet again, to place the shots on their correct frames.  As a result of these meetings a memo is sent from Redlich to Rankin suggesting that the above image, and the 3 surveys done by the same man and concluding the same thing for LIFE, the FBI and the Secret Service, do not represent what the WCR was supposed to say, and they needed to be changed:

Redlich to Rankin April 27, 1964
We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190.  We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point.  Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the approximate location of the three shots.  We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible.  Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films.  If we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us.

I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.
---------------------


Lee Oswald was to be convicted thru all of history as the assassin of JFK, regardless of what authentication of the evidence shows about the quality of said evidence.  When and if you ever learn what the FBI did to make reconstructing the assassination impossible by manipulating the frame data from the zfilm, you may begin to ask more insightful questions

 

Quote

Interested persons today that recognize the Zapruder film as a CIA MSM deception tool ask hard questions never asked by a society blindly trusting US institutions & agencies in 1963: questions like what the heck was Life Magazine doing telling Hoover's 1963 FBI how JFK's ambush supposedly occurred & why wasn't Hoover protesting & retaliating against the corporation?

LIFE was not telling the FBI anything ...  LIFE unilaterally decided on which frames to place the shots: 190, 242 & 313.   Other than 313 being the head shot as seen by all, where does the FBI - or the Ss for that matter - talk about shots at 190 and 242?  And please fill us in on what else LIFE told Hoover about the reality of the assassination?  I for one am very curious and please include references and sources... thanks.

It may seem to some that David is presenting early stages of government investigators trying to CYA & explain an ambush away as the work of a solo, lucky shooter in a building behind the doomed President.

May seem?  There was an orchestrated cover-up of the real facts by substituting the desired evidence for the actual.  No where is this better illustrated than the medical evidence's changes over the years.  When in 1997 Humes reiterates the time JFK arrived despite what the official story was...

Q. Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy?
A. I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately.
Q. Was the body in the casket when you first saw it?
A. Yes, it was in a casket.

Ok, maybe it was years later and the memory was only so good but we both acknowledge the official time the casket was brought into the morgue was 8pm.  what did Humes say in 1964?

Mr. SPECTER - What time did the autopsy start approximately?
Commander HUMES - The president's body was received at 25 minutes before 8

HSCA?
Mr. CORNWELL. Approximately what time of the day or night did the autopsy begin? 
Dr. HUMES. well, the President's body, as I recall, arrived about 7:30 or 7:35 the evening

So, if JFK is both in the Navy Ambulance on the way from Andrews AND in a casket in front of Humes - both on 11/22, how much "Cover-up" do you think was needed at this early stage?  There is much more evidence to corroborate a 6:30 arrival than an 8pm one...  I guess that's why, that night, all medical MILITARY personnel signed an oath never to divulge what they saw under penalty of court-martial...  what do these actions "seem" to you to be doing?

 

People enter all sorts of ambushes every day, all over the globe. Not all of them are sophisticated military tactics. Not all ambushes terminate in death of the victim. Some victims suffer monetary & personal possessions loss. Some never realize they've been victimized in an ambush: for example: the grocery store cashier that charges someone for groceries not bagged & pockets the money spent later when the customer fails to notice the loss & return to the store for a refund. That rip off, like the person enticed to meet someone for an amorous escapade that ends up beaten & robbed are both examples of common, every day ambushes executed on innocent victims globally. Sometimes amateur perpetrators are the culprits. Sometimes it's smooth, professional criminals.

Ambushes are an unfortunate part of our world. Not all ambushes are recognized or avoidable.

While your little soapbox opera scene was nice and all, how does this relate to the military coup perpetrated in 1963 in the US?  Nothing in this post of yours adds to anyone's understanding of the work, only the understanding of how one-sidedly blind you remain in the face of more and more evidence to the contrary.  How about sticking to the topic and offering substantiated information to support you ideas?  Too much work?

Brad Milch

PS: What do the concerned researchers in this thread have to say to former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden's well publicized belief that JFK killers in Dallas escaped Chicago & Federal law enforcement in Chicago a few weeks before the slaughter in Dallas in a planned ambush of JFK in Chicago that was thwarted & subsequently covered up by Chicago & Federal law enforcement agencies (namely: U.S. Secret Service)?

Mr. Bolden describes an agenda driven mindset that is evidenced by Life Magazine's description of the JFK ambush they presented globally a week following JFK's, Officer Tippit's & Lee Oswald's violent deaths in Dallas, namely: deceive the global public as opposed to reporting the truth to them.

Tie this research into Bolden's comments & you just might convince Mr. Von Pein's many confused followers to follow the path to the light.

We're not here to convince anyone of anything.  The direct connection between the FBI and Luce's magazine, and the who was dictating the "facts" to who appears to be backward.  LIFE cooperated with the FBI.  KLEINS cooperated with the FBI.  DPD cooperated with the FBI.  SS cooperated with the FBI.

For those interested go to WCD1's table of contents - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10402#relPageId=9&tab=toc - and then notice the Exhibits in Vol 2.  Of those which have any bearing on the case, how provably authentic or in-authentic are these items of evidence for if they are not authentic, the evidence cannot be used against Oswald...  it means the evidence's meaning cannot be substantiated by the 3 means of creating "Real Evidence" thru authentication.  

Chain of Custody is the 3rd and most difficult to prove, the other two are "by identification of a unique object" or by "identification of an object that has been made unique"

Bottom line is whatever evidence is used to incriminate Oswald must be Authenticated for us to even accept it as related to the case.  

When each of the men shown ce399 tells us that was not the bullet they saw and handed to the next person, until it gets to the bullet Chief Rowley gives to FBI agent Todd.. ce399 cannot be considered AUTHENTIC since there is no identification as an unique item nor is there an established chain of custody.  In fact that chain of custody shows that ce399 was received by the FBI 1 hour and 20 mins before Todd claims to have even picked it up from Rowley...  ooops.

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...because the evidence is not real or authentic

DJ.

 

IV. REAL EVIDENCE.

Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case. The written contract upon which an action is based is real evidence both to prove its terms and that it was executed by the defendant. If it is written in a faltering and unsteady hand, it may also be relevant to show that the writer was under duress at the time of its execution. The bloody bloomers, the murder weapon, a crumpled automobile, the scene of an accident--all may be real evidence.

To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent. Establishing these basic prerequisites, and any other special ones that may apply, is called laying a foundation. The relevance and materiality of real evidence are usually obvious. Its competence is established by showing that it really is what it is supposed to be. Proving that real or other evidence is what it purports to be is called authentication. Evid. Code § 1400; Fed. Rules Evid. 901.

Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen.

The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality.

The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing.

The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony. -

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2017 at 8:19 AM, Chris Davidson said:

52.78"- 39.24"=13.54"-10"= 3.54"/12"= .295ft x 18.3ft = 5.3985ft - .9ft = 4.4985ft / 5 frames = .8997ft per frame x 18.3fps = 16.46451ft per sec / 1.47ft (1mph) = 11.200 mph

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. 
This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds. 
This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per hour. 
Mr. SPECTER. Is that a constant average speed or does that speed reflect any variations in the movement of the car? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the overall average from 161 to 313. It does not mean that it was traveling constantly at 11.2, because it was more than likely going faster in some areas and slightly slower in some areas. It is only an average speed over the entire run.

Shaneyfelt uses a different method of determining averages than I do.

The 39.24 inches in the above equation = 3.27ft = the bs elevation adjustment used for JFK's head above pavement throughout CE884.

At z207, per CE884, a change of 3.27ft vertical = a 1 degree angle change.

Since Frazier gives us a bs lead height of .56ft at z207 per CE560, this comes to mind:

.56ft x 18.3 =.10.248ft horizontal 

10.248ft/3.27ft = 3.133 degrees 

The slope of Elm St was determined to be 3degrees 8minutes per the final WC plat of May 1964, = 3.133.. degrees

 

3.27ft.png
Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The angle to JFK's head via the rifle at z207 is listed as 21deg50min when converted = 21.83degrees.

25degrees per Kurtz - 21.83 degrees = 3.17 degrees

Since the TSBD floors appear to be some 10ft in elevation difference, I do believe that Frazier's .56ft lead entry, not only means a horizontal adjustment, but quite frankly, a vertical adjustment as well.

Primarily, when one reads about Dr Shaw via Kurtz.

This all fits neatly into "two-two shots in one". Reminds one of that old certs breath mint commercial.

Kurtz_1.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...